Wednesday, November 25, 2015

On November 23rd, Price Charles gave an interview to SkyNews, ahead of the UN's climate summit in Paris (COP21). He suggested that Climate Change was the root cause of the Syrian civil war and the resultant refugee crisis. Prince Charles said, "And, in fact, there's very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough, was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land." To watch the entire interview, click here.

This is not the first time Prince Charles meddled in political matters. In our earlier article, "Anti-Vaxxers And Homeopaths Are Idiots!" Prince Charles tried to influence the U.K.'s National Health Service by recommending alternative cures, such as naturopathic and homeopathic remedies.

~ Will Prince Charles destroy over 900 years of monarchy?

In the Age of the Information, honesty and integrity are very important, as people can verify what you say so easily on the Internet now. And people in general are more knowledgeable today compared to earlier generations. Even if you think your cause is just, over zealousness can sometimes make you spread untruths and misinformation. And exaggerations and wild theories are an epidemic! By mashing unrelated issues together, you will appear OPPORTUNISTIC and disingenuous, losing credibility and effectiveness with your base. By capitalizing on the tragedy and misery of an unrelated event, some might even consider that as unethical. In our earlier article, "Shark Fin Sales Drop Up To 70% In China," we discuss the successful ways to conduct cyber activism via the Internet and social media.

~ Charles says the Syrian crisis was caused by a DROUGHT. Really?

There is no proof that the Syrian civil war and the refugee crisis are caused by Climate Change. This is because we can't be sure that the drought and weather patterns were definitely caused by Global Warming – let alone that the drought directly caused the Syrian civil war. There have been droughts for thousands of years, and not all of them have caused political turmoil. And there have been many periods of political and social upheaval while no droughts or any natural disasters existed. It is highly probable that the current crisis in Syria is/was primary caused by political reasons, with the Arab Spring being one of the major catalysts.

~ The Middle East situation is very, very complex.

In turn, there are many other causes that have hitched their wagons onto the Climate Change issue – trying to take advantage of one of the most important and publicized problems of our time. Vegans, anarchist, communists, and even religious activists all want a piece of the Climate Change action.

The vegans, people who want cut out all animal products from our diet, argue that livestock produce greenhouse gasses and therefore are causing Climate Change. In regard to CO2 (carbon dioxide), livestock are CARBON NEUTRAL. The grains and grasses that they eat are not unlike the ethanol produced from corn and sugarcane to run our biofuel cars. But grass are a little better for the environment than soybean meal and corn because of the fertilizers that they use. However, in regard to methane produced by farm animals, another greenhouse gas, the vegans have a point. But that is mostly attributed to cattle and dairy cows, click here.

~ PETA's questionable claims.

There is no proof that less land and habitat would be cleared for farming if we produced more plant-based foods for humans instead of for animals. If we need to get the same amount of nutrients from plant foods as from animals products, a greater amount and diversity of fruits and vegetables must be eaten; and more land might have to be cleared for more cultivation of a larger variety of crops. From the Harvard School of Public Health: "Animal sources of protein tend to deliver all the amino acids we need. Other protein sources, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts and seeds, lack one or more essential amino acids," click here.

~ This EPA chart contradicts some of the PETA claims.

In the chart above from the Environmental Protection Agency, the 9% emissions from agriculture includes greenhouse gasses from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production. And there is no proof that if Americans switched to an all-plant diet there would be less greenhouse-gas emissions from electricity use, transportation, fertilizers, and other inputs of food production. In fact, a greater quantity and variety of fruits, vegetables, and grains would more likely travel farther distances – with higher frequency – to reach national and international markets, burning up more carbon in the process, click here.

Whether you are using Climate Change to pitch veganism or anti-consumerism, or you are using political conflicts to increase awareness of Global Warming, the result will ultimately be less credibility all around – hurting all the causes involved as cynicism grips the public.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

On October 21st, Sesame Street introduced the first autistic Muppet to the world, Julia. It is hoped that Julia will cultivate a greater sense of inclusiveness among children. The reduction of stigma and the promotion of understanding and knowledge can only be a good thing. Sherrie Westin, Executive Vice President of Global Impact and Philanthropy at Sesame Workshop said: "Sesame Workshop is uniquely positioned to play a meaningful role in increasing peoples' understanding about autism. This project is an extension of the belief we've always promoted: 'we are all different, but all the same.'"

But a bunch of crackpots are already attacking Julia, hoping to draw attention to the unproven and ridiculous claim linking vaccines to autism. In their paranoid minds, Julia is a ruse used to normalize autism caused by vaccination. The crazy implication here is that ONLY vaccines cause autism and that ALL methods used to address the autism issue in society are somehow related to vaccines.

Today, scientists are still not sure what causes autism. It is a condition of abnormal brain development and it is not a disease. Genetics may play a role. But one thing is certain, there is absolutely no proof that vaccines cause autism. This is the position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), click here. Even the Autism Science Foundation says this theory is not true, click here.

~ Julia is about inclusiveness, not vaccines.

One of the critics of Julia, whom the Frog Blog believes is either a kook or a shyster, is Mike Adams. He believes there is a vaccine social-engineering plot and a cover-up that are the result of collusion between Sesame Street, the CDC, the mainstream media, Big Pharma, and the United States government. Worse than that, Adams charges that Julia promotes vaccines and that would make autism more prevalent. It's delusional.

Mike Adams is the founder of NaturalNews.com. In our opinion, it's just a rag of misinformation and we recommend that our readers not waste their time on it.

~ Conspiracy theorist Mike Adams is a moron.

From Wikipedia.org: "Adams is an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther, and endorsed conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, those surrounding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. He has endorsed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, a movie about Stanislaw Burzynski. Steven Novella characterizes Adams as "a dangerous conspiracy-mongering crank." Adams has also written a favorable review of the pseudoscientific film House of Numbers on Natural News, which is reprinted on the film's website. Adams has also endorsed the books of conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs."

~ Scary autism correlations.

Most of these ignorant theories about vaccines and other conditions such as autism are based on correlative studies. This so-called growth of autism in society is likely tied to better diagnosis over time, and that "growth" is then correlated by incompetent fools to other data, like that of vaccination rates.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

On September 16th, at the CNN Reagan Library GOP debate, Donald Trump said that vaccines cause autism. We at the Frog Blog just couldn't figure out Donald Trump. Is he an imbecile, a smart guy, a nut, or a conman? Maybe he's a bit of all of them? But one thing is certain, Trump's claim that vaccines cause autism is absolutely wrong, click here.

~ Trump lectures Dr. Carson about vaccines and autism.

It seems that Trump is a really a paranoid man. He was, or still is, an Obama birther – refusing to acknowledge that President Obama is a U.S. citizen and that he is not a Muslim; see a clip of him at a town-hall event in Rochester, New Hampshire – just one day after the debate, click here.

~ Donald Trump's ignorant Tweets about vaccines.

But according to a recent CNN poll, 43% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim. And according to a recent poll conducted by Public Policy Polling, 66% of Trump supporters believe the president is not an American citizen. So, is Trump a moron or a rapscallion? Who knows?

~ Hugh Hewitt Show (Sept. 21); Trump denies Climate Change.

Also, Donald Trump is a Climate Change denier. In that same rally in New Hampshire, Trump basically brushed off a question about Climate Change, click here. Sadly, based on the booing and hissing, the audience seemed to agree with Mr. Trump. And according to a recent Gallup poll, only 37% of conservative Republicans think Climate Change will happen in their life time, click here. So, is Trump a moron or a rapscallion? Who knows?

~ Here's that crazy paranoia again (Nov. 2012).

But Trump is not the only anti-science guy at the CNN Reagan Library GOP debate; Senator Marco Rubio also downplayed the importance of Climate Change. But instead of calling him a Climate-Change denier, it is more fair to call Rubio a Climate-Change skeptic.

~ Marco Rubio doesn't care about Climate Change.

And this is not the first time Rubio has been vague about being anti-science. In 2012, Rubio said he wasn't sure if the world was created in seven days or not. Also, read our previous article about Senator Rubio and other GOP politicians: "Climate-Change Deniers Gain In Congress."

~ Rubio refuses to dismiss the notion of a 6,000-year-old Earth.

At the CNN debate on September 16th, Governor Chris Christie seemed quite reasonable in regard to Climate Change. But it wasn't too long ago that Christie pandered to the more ignorant people in his constituency in regard to vaccines.

~ Chris Christie and Rand Paul went loony on vaccines in the past.

Sadly, another candidate on the debate stage, Senator Rand Paul (who is a medical doctor), also questions the conventional wisdom on vaccines. According to experts, his advice would leave children exposed to preventable diseases. So, it seems Donald Trump is not the only idiot in the GOP race that casts doubt on vaccination.

~ Rand Paul's bad advice on vaccines at the CNN GOP debate.

See CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta contradict Donald Trump and Rand Paul in regard to their view that vaccination should be spread out, click here.

Now, while Dr. Ben Carson got it right on vaccines at the debate, he is really no different than Marco Rubio in regard to Creationism; he believes in that rubbish – thinking that evolution was encouraged by Satan, click here. Also read this earlier Frog Blog article: "GOP Rep. Calls Evolution & Big Bang Lies."

~ Dr. Ben Carson is a Creationist.

We at the Frog Blog have to give Donald Trump a gold star (sticker) for not being that crazy. But again, according to the Pew Research Center, only 43% of Republicans in 2013 believe that humans have evolved over time, and almost half of them believe that this evolution was guided by a Supreme Being, click here. So, are those Creationists who were at the GOP debate morons or rapscallions? Who knows?

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Four years after the Fukushima accident, Japan restarted a nuclear reactor for the first time on August 11th, 2015. Japan has been without nuclear power since the nationwide shutdown was completed in 2013 (50 reactors). Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made it clear that nuclear power is back on the agenda; and his government's goal is to increase nuclear power to 22% of total electricity production by 2030 (before Fukushima, nuclear power accounted for about 30% of Japan's energy).

And it should not be surprising that there is criticism coming from people inside and outside of Japan. However, Prime Minister Abe's move has also been praised by others, such as many scientists, environmentalists, and journalists – like the editorial board of the Washington Post, click here.

~ Japan restarts the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant.

But before we go further, let FrogBook.com first say that environmental activists must start to offer solutions instead of just educating people about the fact that Climate Change is real and that it's a bad thing. Most people already know that now. To preach to the choir is an exercise in getting diminishing returns. People now want leadership and IDEAS. It is quite easy to be fashionable by spewing rhetoric. But it's harder to advocate a particular course of action.

And we at the Frog Blog endorse nuclear energy as the ONLY viable way for the world to totally eliminate carbon by the deadline set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which is the year 2100. The IPCC, a U.N. organization, believes that we must phase out carbon in 85 years to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. If we surpass this limit, it is believed that the consequences could be catastrophic, click here.

Source: Wikipedia.org

~ Climate Change awareness among developed nations.

The Earth Is Running Out Of Time...

All types of renewable energy, such as solar, wind, and wave power, have a place in society. But the problem is, they all have limitations. To focus on them exclusively as a replacement for fossil fuels is a dead end. Solar technology has been around for over 100 years and modern solar power has been around for about 40 years; yet, it is still a tiny portion of the total energy produced in the U.S. today (see image immediately below). The first time wind power was used to generate electricity was in 1887, in Scotland. Other than hydro, it seems to be the most promising renewable source today with a 4.4% share of the market. But at this rate, we cannot make the IPCC deadline with wind alone. And the world's energy makeup is even worse than that of the United States, click here.

~ Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

In many ways, some hardline environmentalists – with their puritanical utopianism in regard to the types of alternative energy that we should or should not be using – are hindering humanity's march toward a carbon-free world; many of them are as hostile toward nuclear power as they are toward fossil fuels. But the Earth's ecology, its wildlife, and humanity itself are running out of time. We don't have time for whiners and unicorns. Read this article: "Global Warming Causes 300,000 Deaths A Year, Says Kofi Annan Thinktank," click here. Climate Change is already HERE and it is irreversible; and that 300,000 deaths per year is just a tip of the iceberg if mankind continues to be complacent or idealistic, click here.

According to the International Energy Agency (an O.E.C.D. agency), the world must double it's nuclear capacity by 2050. This article from Scientific American explains why: "Nuclear Power Needs To Double To Curb Global Warming." And in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (2014), it states: "Achieving deep cuts [in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions] will require more intensive use of low-GHG technologies such as renewable energy, nuclear energy, and CCS." Experts predict a more robust endorsement of nuclear is forthcoming by the IPCC as Climate Change grows dire. And according to the Pew Research Center, 65% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science – the world’s largest international scientific society – favor building more nuclear power plants. FrogBook.com believes this percentage will only grow as time passes.

Don't get us wrong, we are NOT against developing wind and solar technology. In fact, they work very well with other forms of conventional energy and they will always have a role in fighting Climate Change. And as we've said, wind power is very promising, and onshore wind turbines have a low LCOE or levelized cost of electricity (see chart immediately below). While the cost to produce most renewable energy is steadily dropping, there are other factors to consider. The issue here is RELIABILITY.

Source: NOAA.gov

~ Sometimes, clouds can over an entire continent for days.

A nuclear power plant – operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year – has an average electricity generation capacity of over 90%. Wind's average capacity is at 33%, while solar is at only 25%. A nuclear plant that generates 1,800 megawatts would need about 1,100 acres or 1.7 square miles of land. Solar panels producing the same amount of electricity would need 13,320 acres or 21 square miles of land. And for wind turbines to produce 1,800 megawatts, they would need 108,000 acres or 169 square miles of land. This means that solar and wind can only be effective in certain parts of the country and under certain conditions.

Source: U.S. Environmental Information Agency. (Click on image to enlarge.)

~ Nuclear power is dependable.

For example, some areas are better suited for harnessing solar power than others, such as Arizona and Nevada. But even there, you still need the electric company's power grid for nighttime usage. And for factories that move tons of materials 24 hours a day, such as an auto plant, grid electricity is essential.

Source: Wikipedia.org

~ Wind and solar are very land intensive.

Even with all this talk about batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, electric power cannot be stored on a large scale. We must use it as it is being produced and transmitted. The good thing about a house with solar panels is that if it is hooked up to the grid via the meter, excess energy can be passed onto the grid during the daytime while energy from the grid can be used during the nighttime; this arrangement is called "net metering," click here.

~ How net metering works.

Our point is that this grid electricity, also called basic load energy, is either from fossil fuels, hydro, or nuclear. So, all those well-meaning people who bought electric or hydrogen cars are fooling themselves if their cars are fueled by grid electricity generated with fossil fuels.

Therefore, the key to fighting Climate Change is to replace the fossil-fuel power plants that supply the grid. On August 3, 2015, President Obama announced that all power plants must meet the requirement by 2030 of a 32% reduction in carbon emissions (based on 2005 levels). While we at the Frog Blog think this is not enough, it is a good start. Also, read our earlier article, "U.S. To Cut CO2 Emissions By 1/3 In 15 Yrs."

~ President Obama focuses on power plants.

We should continue to invest in renewables, but because of time constraints, we must also invest quickly in nuclear power. In our opinion, renewable and nuclear energy development should be planned and executed in unison, not separately.

The Canadian province of Ontario produces over 85% clean energy, with 60% of it from nuclear. Ontario is a model for the world on how to cut out carbon, click here. France, too, is using a similar strategy with 75% to 80% of its energy from nuclear. France is the biggest user of nuclear power in the world and it is also one of the world's largest exporters of cheap electricity, click here.

~ France went nuclear in just 20 years. So can the world.

Costs And Benefits Of Nuclear Power

Both wind and solar installations exact environmental costs, but they are less than that of nuclear power. Wind turbines kill about 300,000 birds per year, which is similar to the number of birds nuclear plants kill. Solar power installations and its mirrors also kill birds with extreme heat, burning them in mid-flight, click here. And both wind turbines and solar panels do infringe on large tracks of undeveloped land such as grasslands and other habitats of wildlife. And the rare earths used to make turbines, solar panels, and electric car batteries are harmful to the environment during the extraction, refining, and disposal process, click here.

The bottom line is, EVERYTHING has costs and risks. Society must put aside its fears and superstitions and choose a course of action where the benefits most outweigh the risks. As we've mentioned earlier, FrogBook.com is saying that the benefits of nuclear is much greater than that of renewables in regard to replacing carbon, even though the latter's risks are negligible. And now we will try to explain that the risks of nuclear power is not as bad as some people think.

Source: Wikipedia.org

~ Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown in March, 2011.

Most reasonable people would point to nuclear waste and the Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl accidents as perfect examples of the costs or dangers of nuclear power. So let's first look at the waste.

Did you know that all the used fuel from nuclear power plants that has ever been produced in the United States can fit into a single football field – stacked only three meters high? 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste has been produced by the U.S. in its entire history. It is estimated that this number will go up to 119,000 metric tons by 2035. In terms of toxicity, chemical waste is far worse and it is more pervasive; it includes the most poisonous substances known to man, such as cyanide, mercury, arsenic, sarin, ricin, and many others. In terms of overall hazardous waste (excluding nuclear), 40 million tons of it is produced each year in the United States, click here. And unlike spent nuclear fuel, some of this toxic waste is unaccounted for.

~ All U.S. nuclear-plant waste ever stored fits into a football field.

The vast majority of used nuclear fuel are radioactive only for dozens of years and can be disposed of in near-surface facilities. However, about 3% of the total volume of the waste produced will remain radioactive and hazardous for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and they will need to be disposed of underground. But the good news is, nuclear waste can be recycled in 4th generation reactors.

Source: Wikipedia.org (Click on image to enlarge.)

~ Nuclear reactors in four generations.

There are many different types of 4th generation reactors, and here are some of their attributes: 1) They produce nuclear waste that is radioactive for a shorter period of time – certain types of waste that would take thousands of years to decay from a traditional reactor would take only hundreds of years to decay. 2) They are able to squeeze 100 to 300 times more energy out of the same quantity of nuclear fuel. 3) They have the ability to recycle nuclear waste, making nuclear power a renewable energy. 4) They are safer by avoiding cooling systems that use heavy water.

In a nuclear accident, the water could leak, causing fuel rods to emit tremendous radiation – a meltdown might occur. At Fukushima, the backup generators failed and the cooling systems for the reactors stopped working. But a 4th generation reactor, such as a liquid metal cooled reactor, requires no electricity for cooling after a shutdown has occurred. Also, the temperature for a liquid metal to boil is very high (for lead, it is 1750 °C), making reactor pressurization through overheating impossible.

~ Nuclear waste can be recycled to create more electricity.

And this brings us to our final point: nuclear accidents' cost-benefit relationship with society and Climate Change. The total number of people killed directly due the Three Mile Island accident was zero; no cancer deaths. The total number of people killed directly due to the Fukushima accident was zero; no cancer deaths so far. The total number of people killed directly due the Chernobyl accident ranges from 31 to 64. However, according to the World Health Organization, 4,000 civilians exposed to radiation might have died due to developing thyroid cancer. But other estimates have been as low as 15 deaths from the thyroid cancer group. Click here. Of course there is an environmental cost due to accidents as well. But with radioactive decontamination, affected areas should return to normal after a number of decades.

On the face of it, nuclear power clearly has risks. But if you look at the potential of nuclear power to combat Climate Change, perhaps the risks are worth it (especially with the advances made in 4th generation reactors). Society makes cost-benefit calculations all the time. Between 2003 and 2013, the average number of deaths from motor vehicle accidents in the United States were approximately 41,600 per year. And the safest form of travel – air travel – was responsible for 10,572 deaths worldwide between 2004 to 2014. Basically, nuclear power is FAR less dangerous than flying. To see a chart of deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity by source, click here.

The Third World is developing rapidly, and that has pulled millions of people out of poverty. For China alone, 600 million people have risen out of poverty in just 30 years. For the sake of Climate Change, the developed world cannot ask the underdeveloped and developing nations to continue to suffer with hunger and poverty while it itself keeps on squandering the Earth's resources.

~ The world population will likely be over 10 billion by 2100.

The environmental ideologues tout renewable energy and conservation exclusively. But even with President Obama's modest 32% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 just for power plants, that would be equivalent to removing 70% of the cars from U.S. roads. To achieve the IPCC's target, the sacrifices needed would be far, far greater than that. Renewables alone simply cannot fill this hole; and such a sacrifice is untenable to most Americans – they would rather take their chances with Climate Change.

But renewable energy and conservation working WITH nuclear power on a global scale would work in cutting carbon out of our fast-developing and growing human civilization.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

In early July, scientists met at the Royal Astronomical Society in the UK, click here. A new model that predicts the Sun's solar cycles was presented and the results were shocking. One of the researchers, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University, claimed that the model has an unprecedented accuracy rate of 97%; and this model predicts that solar activity will drop by 60% at around 2030 – possibly creating a mini ice age on Earth!

Source: NASA

~ Changes in solar activity over the years.

This anticipated phenomenon of the Sun has been compared to the Maunder Minimum (also called the "prolonged sunspot minimum"), a period between 1645 and 1715 in which very few sunspots were observed. And during this time, lower-than-average temperatures were recorded in Europe. And it was reported that winters in both Europe and North America were very cold. These types of drops to the temperature on Earth after the Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 AD) are referred to as the Little Ice Age (around 1550 to 1850 AD, bracketing the Maunder Minimum).

~ A mini ice age could last decades or centuries.

Before we go further, let us digress: If there has been a long term uptrend of sunspots (expected to top out around now, see NASA video at the bottom of this article), then one could argue that Global Warming might have been caused by solar activity rather than by excessive carbon dioxide (CO2). This has been the main argument coming from Climate-Change deniers for years; and this new theory on the mini ice age is something that they are vigorously promoting. One of their main academic supporters is astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. And while his research is heavily funded by the energy industry, we should not dismiss his claims without further investigation, click here.

The main questions are:
1) Is there really an excessive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today?
2) Who or what has created this extra CO2?
3) Do different levels of CO2 in the atmosphere really cause changes in the Earth's temperature?
4) Does solar activity really have an impact on the Earth's temperature?

(Click on image to enlarge.)

~ Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 400,000 years ago to now.

The answers to #1 is 'yes'; as the image immediately above shows, CO2 has risen to unusually high levels after the dawn of the industrial revolution.

And the answer to #2 is that humans are the likely cause of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere; see video immediately below. According to NASA, 97% of the world's climate scientists believe Climate Change is caused by human activities, click here.

~ Fact: humans ARE creating more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The answer to questions #3 and #4 is 'yes' – BOTH CO2 and solar activity probably have an impact on temperature; but the issue here is the relative magnitude of each.

Evidence of the the effects of carbon dioxide on temperature are extremely strong. This relationship has been understood for over a century and has been proven many times through scientific experiments and empirical evidence, click here.

~ How CO2 warms the atmosphere.

Based on the data we have, there also seems to be a relationship between solar activity and the Earth's temperature. But after 1980, this relationship appears to have diverged (see chart immediately below). This suggests that excessive CO2 may be a much more powerful driver of climatic events than solar activity.

~ Is this divergence caused by CO2?

What is quite curious is that this period of divergence corresponded with the rapid industrialization of China a number of years after the death of Chairman Mao Zedong in 1976. China's development has relied heavily on the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, click here. Perhaps China's CO2 emissions have maintained a steady but steep rise in temperature that otherwise would have leveled off along with the leveling off of solar activity. (The effects on the climate made by China is discussed in our earlier article: "U.S. To Cut CO2 Emissions By 1/3 In 15 Yrs.")

Source: Wikipedia.

~ China, India and other developing nations are industrializing.

The bottom line is, there is still a lot we don't understand about solar activity and its effects on the Earth's temperature, magnetic field, radio signals, communication satellites, and power lines (read our earlier article: "Solar Flares To Peak In 2013 – Disaster?").

The possible drop in temperature due to the reduction in solar activity around 2030 would likely to be insignificant, click here. And our current Global Warming situation might neutralize – or at the least mitigate – any effects from a temperature drop that might occur.

~ NASA explains the solar cycle. "Isn't something to worry about."

On the other hand, if the temperature drop is greater than expected, any mini ice age that might emerge from this solar event is unlikely to be catastrophic, if history is any indication. However, it might still be strong enough to mitigate to some extent our current Global Warming predicament. This second scenario would buy our planet a bit more time to wean off fossil fuels (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or I.P.C.C., recommends an end to fossil fuels by 2100, click here).

* * *

UPDATE: Nuclear Power Is Best For Climate Change

(August 20, 2015) Read our article on why nuclear power is the only realistic way to cut out all carbon, click here.

Friday, June 12, 2015

According to conspiracy theorists, the end of the world will arrive between the 22nd and 28th of September, 2015 – with the most likely Apocalyptic date being September 23rd or 24th. The supposed methods of our destruction are as varied as the supposed reasons for our doom.

To conspiracists, exactly how the Earth will technically end ranges from an asteroid or comet colliding into us, to another planet smashing into the Earth (click here), to a total climate catastrophe, to a nuclear war, to a gigantic earthquake, and to the switching of the magnetic poles.

But the nut with the earliest and greatest impact on this hysteria is probably self-proclaimed prophet Reverend Efrain Rodriguez of Puerto Rico, who says the Earth will be hit by an asteroid in September, causing millions of deaths. FrogBook.com thinks this individual is probably a conman out for financial gain.

~ It's all nonsense.

As for the supposed reason for our demise, one theory attributes the expected catastrophe to a tetrad – four consecutive blood moons (from 2014 to 2015) – culminating on September 28th, 2015. Another theory claims it's actually the Rapture as foretold by the Bible, to be followed by seven years of Tribulation. And there is a theory that says the pending disaster won't totally wipe out mankind, but it is a sign that ushers in the rise of the Illuminati that will enslave the planet in a New World Order (NWO).

Because of the hysteria, NASA has recently released a statement: "NASA knows of no asteroid or comet currently on a collision course with Earth, so the probability of a major collision is quite small....In fact, as best as we can tell, no large object is likely to strike the Earth any time in the next several hundred years....NASA has also made asteroid detection a top priority, and are developing strategies for identifying asteroids that could pose a risk to our planet."

But conspiracists say NASA's statement is just a lie that tries to prevent widespread panic. Basically, conspiracy theorists will believe ANYTHING that agrees with their preconceived ideas, no matter how bizarre; and they will reject ANYTHING that disagrees with their preconceived ideas regardless of the factual evidence.

~ Documentary: Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?

We can never convince a conspiracy theorist of the truth. The best we can do is to try to persuade them to not take foolish actions that may harm themselves or others. While conspiracy theorists are very stubborn with their ideas, some will listen to you in regard to their possible actions.

In our earlier article, "Doomsday Prophets Are Idiots!," we reported that some people committed suicide out of fear due to preacher Harold Camping's prediction of the Rapture on May 21, 2011. And many gave all their money away, including to Camping's ministry, only to find themselves penniless on May 22nd (Camping refused to return their donations).

~ A fool loses his life savings.

So, try to convince people who are into this nonsense to 1) not harm themselves and their loved ones, 2) not abuse alcohol, prescription drugs, or narcotics 3) not give away all their money and possessions, 4) not quit their jobs or close their businesses, 5) not take dangerous risks or spend money recklessly on final thrills, 6) not squander money on survival supplies and equipment as well as on expensive shelters.

Believe or not, many people do these stupid things all over the world in anticipation of one type of doomsday or another. But in the back of the conspiracy theorist's mind, he is still in touch with reality. He is just holding on to a fantasy to escape from the real world.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

On April 23rd, Dr. Oz defended himself against allegations of quackery from other scientists and from the Senate. Ten scientists from around the U.S. signed a petition demanding that Dr. Oz be fired from Columbia University, where he is currently the vice chairman of the Department of Surgery. And five medical doctors and three PHDs at Columbia University are also complaining about him.

To justify his behavior, Dr. Oz also said that his show is really not a "medical" show. That is the most ludicrous thing that the Frog Blog has ever heard. What constitutes a medical show? Do they have to do autopsies and operations on every episode to qualify? Common sense would tell you that a highly qualified medical professional (sometimes wearing a surgeon's scrubs) giving advice on a TV program called "The Dr. Oz Show" would likely be taken by the audience as someone giving scientific advice – not rubbish!

~ Dr. Oz being grilled by the Senate over "magic" diet pills.

Since 2009, Dr. Oz has touted so much nonsense that we don't have time to mention all of them here. But this article,
"Dr. Oz's 10 Most Controversial Weight Loss Supplements," will provide a flavor of what he has been up to. We think the best way to understand why so many people are angry with Dr. Oz is to watch the video clips we have posted below.

But one of Dr. Oz's transgressions is so unforgivable that it needs to be mentioned here: he supports of the quackery that is homeopathy – essentially treating people with water as a placebo. For more information on homeopathy, read our earlier article, "Anti-Vaxxers And Homeopaths Are Idiots!"

~ Dr. Oz supports the pseudo science of homeopathy.

The big question is, does Dr. Oz directly benefit (getting a portion of the profits from product sales) for pitching products on his show? FrogBook.com doubts this is the case. But the show does seem to be very important to him as a source of fame, prestige, and influence. And he seems to be willing to do anything to keep it alive. We think he must have run out of material for his daily program years ago and he desperately resorted to junk science and superstition as fodder – keeping things interesting and sensational to prop up his ratings.

~ Dr. Oz brings a faith healer onto his show.

While television is an old medium, it too must catch up to the Internet to compete. And what the Internet has done is to reduce the cost of information for the consumer to almost nothing. In the old days of print media, publishers had to invest great sums of money in their products and they had to make sure their books and magazines were factually correct; after all, they were charging people a lot of money for them. This process vetted out the crazy rambling submissions from writers who were anarchists, idiots, and nuts. But today, it is just as easy to publish misinformation as it is to publish REAL information. And many web surfers are duped into believing all sorts of nonsense (people should always check the reputation of online writers and publishers). And what Dr. Oz does is to tap into this market: the misinformed.

~ The Long Island Medium on The Dr. Oz Show.

The Monetization Of Ignorance

The Internet is a double-edged sword. While millions of people have indeed become better informed today than before, the Net has also created a stubborn minority of misinformed people who have been empowered to embrace and spread LIES. Social media have been able to help a bunch of people with psychological issues (and those who want to exploit them) to find one another and to enable one another in their psychosis – fighting off scientific facts and loved ones' attempts to get them treatment and counselling. They all live in their own little social-media bubbles of ignorance and paranoia.

~ Conspiracy and anti-science nut Alex Jones is very popular.

In the age of the Internet, you don't just educate people; you also enable their ignorance and delusions to gain visitors and viewers to sell advertising and/or products on your platform – may that be a TV show, a website, or an app. The trick is to tell people what they want to hear.

Empowered with the Internet, charlatans can now more easily exploit in vast numbers people with certain fears and misconceptions. One example is Vani Hari, also known as the Food Babe on her website (read this article from Gawker.com, "The 'Food Babe' Blogger Is Full of Shit"). And what she takes advantage of are some people's obsessive – almost compulsive – need to be "pure," "clean," "natural," and "perfect," perhaps reflecting deeper psychological issues.

This kind of mentality contributes to the irrational fear of vaccines and other medicines as well as of many types of foods that we eat and drink every day. This also gives rise to the detox industry, selling useless liquid vegan diets, coffee enemas, and mud baths for high profits, click here. The Frog Blog has always endorsed moderation and variety in regard to diet and exercise. And that by definition is to NOT seek out "perfection" – it is an illusion.

Source: Wikipedia.org

------------~ It is natural to die young.

The bottom line is, modern science has more than doubled life expectancy in just about a century. People like Food Babe and Dr. Oz are willing to compromise the advances we have made for personal gain. While Vani Hari is just an uneducated blogger, it is totally unacceptable that an Ivy League-trained medical doctor and surgeon also jumps on the misinformation bandwagon. It's time Oprah pulls the plug on Dr. Oz.

Friday, April 17, 2015

On April 7th, the top scientist at NASA (Ellen Stofan) said, "I think we're going to have strong indications of life beyond Earth within a decade, and I think we're going to have definitive evidence within 20 to 30 years." However, she quickly made clear that she was not talking about intelligent life. Finding intelligent life would be a very remote possibility and alien contact would be highly unlikely to almost impossible.

The sheer distance between physical bodies in our galaxy would force light (let alone space aliens) to travel for thousands of years just to reach us from a planet that contains life somewhere in our Milky Way Galaxy. And light travels at 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). Read this article about the possibility of intelligent civilizations elsewhere in the universe, "Search Of 100,000 Galaxies Finds No Sign Of Alien Life."

~ Our galaxy and our universe are very, very big.

One must realize that travelling over a very, very long distance comes with many problems that even an advanced civilization has to come to terms with. One problem posed by the laws of physics is getting information on planets where the images carried to us by light are thousands of years old. Basically, if aliens are looking at us, they are looking at our ancient history. And even if one could travel close to the speed of light, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity says that by doing so, one would also travel through TIME into the future. (But travelling into the past is not possible.)

~ Whenever you are in motion, TIME slows down only for YOU!

If an alien civilization at the other end of the galaxy is trying to reach us, it would take the aliens about 78,000 years to get here even if they are travelling near the speed of light. Because of time dilation, they could never be sure of what their destination would hold for them – they basically wouldn't know where they are really going. If aliens could live for a long time (with advanced cryonic technology) and travel for just 20,000 years to our planet at a velocity very, very close to light-speed (say at 0.99999999c, click here), they would have travelled to our future many million years from now! We're likely not here by then.

Some theorists argue that if one of Einstein's other theories – on wormholes – is correct, aliens would be able to see our past, present, and future and travelling through time (past, present, and future) and space would be achievable regardless of distance. However, this theory is likely wrong and wormholes probably don't exist outside of science fiction. Read this article on the subject: "Astrophysicist Says Wormholes Of 'Interstellar' Unlikely To Exist," click here.

Due to the advances made in telescope technology, we now have a clearer picture of the universe and our Milky Way Galaxy. And we recently discovered that the closest potentially habitable planet is just 13 light-years away, click here. However, we now also know life is unlikely to exist elsewhere in our solar system or anywhere within travelling distance. While we've discovered water on many physical bodies near Earth, they lack the other conditions required for life, click here. (Read our earlier article about habitable planets and the Goldilocks Zone, "There Are Billions Of Habitable Planets," click here.)

~ Having just the right defenses against space weather matters...

At any rate, just because there are planets with all the right conditions to support life, that does not mean there are necessarily life forms living there. It's possible the odds of forming and cultivating life with all the required circumstances and elements falling uniquely and sequentially into place are like winning 10 or more top lottery prizes in a row – and Earth is just a statistical fluke of nature! Until humans are able to replicate life from scratch, we will never know for sure the true odds of alien life existing in our galaxy or universe.

~ Are we alone? Will we pick up alien signals?

Currently, our universe is only 13.8 billion years old. And the Milky Way Galaxy is only 13.2 billion years old. Scientists think our universe may continue for hundreds of billions of years. In other words, our universe is very young. It's quite possible an explosion of life and civilizations will occur billions of years from now. Humans might just be a lonely start-up relative to the greater scheme of things.

The best we can hope for as humans is to discover lower life forms on other planets with our telescopes (hopefully NASA is right about its time frame). And if we receive radio signals one day from an alien civilization in either our galaxy or another galaxy, that would be one of the greatest events in human history (although that civilization might have already gone extinct by the time we receive these signals).

Monday, March 16, 2015

On February 3rd, Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers In Genesis, posted an announcement on Youtube, click here. The Christian ministry is suing the State of Kentucky for $18 million in state sales tax rebates because the state found his theme park, Ark Encounter (currently under construction), not eligible for the tax incentive due its discriminatory hiring policies against non-Christians. Ark Encounter is a for-profit Creationist park which features a Noah's Ark that is three stories high and two football fields long.

~ Ken Ham thinks discrimination is a right if you're religious.

We reported on Ark Encounter in February of 2012: "Tax-Break For Kentucky Creationist Park," click here. In that article, we reported that the Christian theme park was approved for a $43 million sales tax rebate for a $173 million project that was supposed to provide Kentucky with many jobs. Now, the project has shrunk to $78 million with a potential tax break of $18 million – if the park doesn't violate any rules.

The article also talks about Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky, which spreads misinformation such as dinosaurs being alive 6,000 years ago. And like the museum, it's likely this new theme park will teach children that Noah's Ark carried all the species of animals in the world, including dinosaurs! There are approximately 1.26 million species of land animals TODAY, which means there was supposedly well over 2 1/2 million animals on Noah's Ark, including dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, and other extinct creatures. Then there is the issue of fresh-water fish species – Noah must have built a freshwater aquarium in the hull! What a pathetic mess of lies.

One might ask, if the theme park promotes religious ideas such as Creationism, why should Ark Encounter be eligible for any rebates regardless of its hiring policies?

Many for-profit theme parks do promote religious or pagan ideas whether we are aware of them or not. One example is the Harry Potter attractions at the Universal Orlando Resort in Florida, click here. Witchcraft and other pagan ideas are a form of mysticism that many people believe in much the same way other people believe in religion. If the resort were in Kentucky, the studio would likely have gotten the rebate. And if 20th Century Fox wanted to incorporate video game attractions into a theme park that included it's recent movie, Exodus (about Moses and the Ten Commandments), it would also likely be eligible for a tax break in Kentucky and other states with similar tax schemes.

~ Studios make religious films that could be used in theme parks.

So, to create a theme park about Noah's Ark is not that much of a stretch. The controversy lies with Noah's Ark being tied to the current political debate between the Theory of Evolution and Creationism (also referred to as Intelligent Design). Sadly, this debate is still going strong in the United States; see our previous article, "Bill Nye Debates Creationist Ken Ham," click here.

And as long as the park employees do not claim that their message is a part of the state educational system or curriculum, the First Amendment does protect whatever nonsense that they might be spewing to the public, and the tax rebate cannot easily be revoked. Ken Ham could argue that if kids are exposed to witches and demons at other theme parks that have received government benefits, then Ark Encounter surely should not be penalized for promoting Bible stories.

~ Gov't incentives can't be used for religious discrimination.

However, the issue of discrimination is a wholly different matter. According to Governor Steve Beshear and Kentucky's tourism secretary, the granting of tax incentives is all tied to job creation. And it makes no sense to allow Ark Encounter to discriminate against Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and atheists (which might include gays, lesbians, and transexuals) when everybody in the state pays taxes, including the aforementioned. The Frog Blog believes Ken Ham's lawsuit will be defeated. The tax rebate is a privilege and is not a right. Ken Ham's claim that it is his organization that is the victim of discrimination – for not being allowed to discriminate – is ludicrous.

Society must be vigilant in regard to cunning people like Ken Ham who are trying to fill children's heads with rubbish. And they do succeed through clever methods that attempt to circumvent the Constitution (such as with school vouchers and home schooling). And as we have explained above, Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum have already succeeded in this regard.

Since we've brought up the issue of tuition vouchers, let us also mention that according to Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that for a voucher program to be constitutional, it must meet all of the following criteria:

The program must have a valid secular purpose.

Aid must go to parents and not to the schools.

A broad class of beneficiaries must be covered.

The program must be neutral with respect to religion.

There must be adequate nonreligious options.

However, the teaching of Creationism in a private school funded by pubic money via vouchers is legally viable even with all the criteria above. But the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent design in public schools is prohibited. Therefore, vouchers are a legal loophole that makes education inconsistent in the United States in regard to public funds. So, it is vitally important that citizens oppose voucher programs at the state level.

~ Vouchers: a legal loophole for Creationism. (Taped in 2002.)

Just because vouchers are constitutional in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court, that does not mean a state is obligated to allow them – it is after all the taxpayer's money. But if a state wants vouchers and they do not violate the state's own constitution, the 2002 ruling will support its position, as long as the state meets the U.S. Supreme Court's criteria. Sadly, more and more states are now allowing vouchers. Also, read our earlier article, "Teaching Creationism Is Child Abuse," click here.

[Map Of Publicly-Funded Schools That Are Allowed To Teach Creationism, click here]